You know I got an email from some inportant people and they want my input on Job creation in the United States. This topic just might come up!
-
Happy Birthday ICMag! Been 20 years since Gypsy Nirvana created the forum! We are celebrating with a 4/20 Giveaway and by launching a new Patreon tier called "420club". You can read more here.
-
Important notice: ICMag's T.O.U. has been updated. Please review it here. For your convenience, it is also available in the main forum menu, under 'Quick Links"!
I didn't say you did - I said it came off that way.
That use of the word "should" again is a little problematic. See previous post.
The idea of "at-will" employment is an American doctrine. The presumption at common law is different. There, just cause is required.
The position in all other common law countries, (reasonable notice or pay in lieu thereof, absent just cause) is, in fact, also comprised within American employment law. It's called the implied contract rule. And, as a matter of fact, that rule is also the law of California, too. Your suggesting that California is a strictly "at will" state is not true, as California does not oust the implied contract rule, nor do the large majority of US States (though some states do).
Please provide examples of this in practice. The "implied contract" is very hard to prove and that burden of proof lies on the employee. Generally this law is only pursued by "ambulance chasers" that would like to take advantage of the unemployed. The At-Will status of employment in California has been supported time and time again, even in my own experiences on BOTH sides. Please find me a case in California where there was an implied contract that was proven where there wasn't anything in writing stating long term employement was implied by the employer. The fact is most of the time, that's not the case and it doesn't apply.
It doesn't make me a shill in any way or however you put it that I would rather not ADD legislation to restrict the rights of employers. I love that people believe that employment is a right.
The right law to pass here isn't an employment law, or any legislation relating to employment, but to pass legislation protecting the privacy of citizens. Don't even make it about employers in the first place. Employers shouldn't be ABLE to legally require a sample of your blood or urine, IF they do, they SHOULD be able to fire you based on their findings. They could find you DON'T do drugs and fire you. Hell, why not? What if you worked at dispensary and claimed to be a 420 patient, but you pass a drug test with flying colors. Should you be fired? No, no one should've been able to check. That's the point I'm making.
It doesn't make me a shill in any way or however you put it that I would rather not ADD legislation to restrict the rights of employers. I love that people believe that employment is a right.
The right law to pass here isn't an employment law, or any legislation relating to employment, but to pass legislation protecting the privacy of citizens. Don't even make it about employers in the first place. Employers shouldn't be ABLE to legally require a sample of your blood or urine, IF they do, they SHOULD be able to fire you based on their findings. They could find you DON'T do drugs and fire you. Hell, why not? What if you worked at dispensary and claimed to be a 420 patient, but you pass a drug test with flying colors. Should you be fired? No, no one should've been able to check. That's the point I'm making.
I'm looking through it now and I don't see it. If someone comes across anything like that, please post it. This could help me out a lot, but from what I've found and the searching I've done over the last 3 months (which I admit isn't long) and the conversation I've had with my attorney, the "implied contract" seldom holds up.
Edit: The only case I have found that has an precident here is Foley v. Interactive Data Corporation (1988) and this is the information that I've found:
In that case, the Court stated the general principle that courts seek to enforce the actual understanding of the parties to a contract, and in so doing may inquire into the parties' conduct to determine if it demonstrates an implied contract. The Court further noted that in the employment context, several factors may be considered to determine whether implied employment contract existed, including (1) personal policies or practices of the employer; (2) the employee's longevity of service; (3) actions or communications by the employer reflecting assurances of continued employment; and (4) the practices of the industry in which the employee is engaged.
The Foley court, considering the above factors, came to the conclusion that there was an implied contract to not terminate employment where the employee, who worked for his employer for over 6 years, received excellent performance evaluations and promotions, was told that if he was going to do a good job, his future was secure, and where the employer admitted that it did not normally fire employee without cause.
These factors, however, don't have much weight if the employee actually signed a written form, stating that he understands that he is an at will employee and may be terminated at any time with or without cause.
Very interesting read....Watch out for that form, I'm sure I've signed it every job I've ever had. Agreeing that employment is "At-Will" and that you can be terminated at any time. Never realized why EVERY employer has you sign that.
Edit: The only case I have found that has an precident here is Foley v. Interactive Data Corporation (1988) and this is the information that I've found:
In that case, the Court stated the general principle that courts seek to enforce the actual understanding of the parties to a contract, and in so doing may inquire into the parties' conduct to determine if it demonstrates an implied contract. The Court further noted that in the employment context, several factors may be considered to determine whether implied employment contract existed, including (1) personal policies or practices of the employer; (2) the employee's longevity of service; (3) actions or communications by the employer reflecting assurances of continued employment; and (4) the practices of the industry in which the employee is engaged.
The Foley court, considering the above factors, came to the conclusion that there was an implied contract to not terminate employment where the employee, who worked for his employer for over 6 years, received excellent performance evaluations and promotions, was told that if he was going to do a good job, his future was secure, and where the employer admitted that it did not normally fire employee without cause.
These factors, however, don't have much weight if the employee actually signed a written form, stating that he understands that he is an at will employee and may be terminated at any time with or without cause.
Very interesting read....Watch out for that form, I'm sure I've signed it every job I've ever had. Agreeing that employment is "At-Will" and that you can be terminated at any time. Never realized why EVERY employer has you sign that.
Last edited:
This all has been coming down the pipeline, or in the works, for quite some time now. Both the Diaz brothers (Nick and Nate), and several other mid/top ranking MMA fighters have already discussed this topic publicly.
Here's just a couple of "snip-it's" from the ol' Googles (07-09):
http://www.thesweetscience.com/boxing-article/5490/nick-diaz-mma-pro-weed-warrior/
http://articles.latimes.com/2009/apr/09/sports/sp-mma-diaz-strikeforce8
Here's just a couple of "snip-it's" from the ol' Googles (07-09):
http://www.thesweetscience.com/boxing-article/5490/nick-diaz-mma-pro-weed-warrior/
http://articles.latimes.com/2009/apr/09/sports/sp-mma-diaz-strikeforce8
D
dillhole
Hi, guys. Sorry for not including my opinion in the original post but it would have been ugly considering the state of mind I was in last night. Tonight's not really much better
I think this is a battle that we will inevitably be required to fight. Even if full legalization happened tomorrow we would still have opposition from many directions. This will be one of them.
You can be fired for any reason. This is a fact for most jobs. It's not right and neither is mandatory drug testing, but it's reality. Most people accept drug tests as an integral part of being employed, but they don't realize how their rights are getting trampled. Right now, I doubt enough support could be gathered to change things. However, if legalization or decriminalization of marijuana does occur, I expect more attention to be given to this issue. If many people are fired for doing something that is legal it will become obvious to the general public that the current rules for employment are wrong. With greater numbers aware of this problem, we can demand that our rights be respected.
The optimist in me hopes that happens very soon and that many of the injustices against us will brought out into the open for debate. The pessimist in me realizes that bureaucracy is a formidable force and that nothing will happen the way I want it to.
DH
I think this is a battle that we will inevitably be required to fight. Even if full legalization happened tomorrow we would still have opposition from many directions. This will be one of them.
You can be fired for any reason. This is a fact for most jobs. It's not right and neither is mandatory drug testing, but it's reality. Most people accept drug tests as an integral part of being employed, but they don't realize how their rights are getting trampled. Right now, I doubt enough support could be gathered to change things. However, if legalization or decriminalization of marijuana does occur, I expect more attention to be given to this issue. If many people are fired for doing something that is legal it will become obvious to the general public that the current rules for employment are wrong. With greater numbers aware of this problem, we can demand that our rights be respected.
The optimist in me hopes that happens very soon and that many of the injustices against us will brought out into the open for debate. The pessimist in me realizes that bureaucracy is a formidable force and that nothing will happen the way I want it to.
DH
Of course we've heard of wrongful termination settlements. They are most commonly won when the termination is for an ILLEGAL reason, not for no reason. For example if you are terminated because your employer finds out your gay or your dating a person of a different race.
Wrongful termination settlement for not passing a piss test and getting fired? We're a looooooong way from there.
Wrongful termination settlement for not passing a piss test and getting fired? We're a looooooong way from there.
RagnorokYoshi
Member
that sux. i know a few pro skaters who smoke then go film for an important video, but thats skateboarding.
micheal phelps got boned tho.
micheal phelps got boned tho.
bbing
Active member
Guess its gonna be up to us (the half of the country who has no issue) to be the business leaders that will provide these opportunities for employees publicly.
These issues are gonna take some time to sort,
I really would prefer some professions to be canna-free,
like a : Paramedic, Pilot, etc....but President? We need to make it mandatory that any sitting President must take a couple of tokes before making descisions that Foreign invasions and such.
These issues are gonna take some time to sort,
I really would prefer some professions to be canna-free,
like a : Paramedic, Pilot, etc....but President? We need to make it mandatory that any sitting President must take a couple of tokes before making descisions that Foreign invasions and such.
